W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2001


From: Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>
Date: 20 Apr 2001 09:35:48 -0500
To: RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <m01yqnoczf.fsf@bitsko.slc.ut.us>
[please do not Cc me on posts to the list, thx.]

Murray Altheim <altheim@eng.sun.com> writes:

> Ken MacLeod wrote:

> > That may be exactly the problem with extent XML specs, there is no
> > spec that allows for well-formed (or seperately validated) content
> > within valid content.
> > 
> > I think this problem would be easily solved once the realization
> > is made that that is *exactly* what we are asking for in several
> > applications of XML.
> Perhaps it would help if I could understand the rationale behind
> this.  What you're essentially asking for is the ability to validate
> a portion of a document (ie., you want a contract on its validity),
> but other portions of the document you don't care about "making any
> sense" (which is all DTD validation does, markup-wise).

One way to look at it is like software components or containers
(OpenDoc, JavaBeans).  What we have here are "data components".  We
have, logically, two or more sets of data that are merely co-located,
not integrated or validated as one whole, though they are very likely
validatable seperately.

This isn't particular to RDF.  This is is a characteristic that should
work with straight XML, XML Schema, SOAP, or XHTML, if it were allowed.

  -- Ken
Received on Friday, 20 April 2001 10:35:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:29 UTC